An open-source simulator and government-issue robots will power the challenge.

Yesterday, the Department of Defense's advanced research arm, DARPA, announced the details of its next grand challenge. Following up on its autonomous vehicle challenge, the research agency will now focus on robots that do need an operator. But these robots are meant to operate in what DARPA calls "degraded" environments—basically, disaster zones of various flavors—where bandwidth between the operator and the robot won't be guaranteed.

DARPA's Dr. Gill Pratt, who described the program earlier this week, said the goal of the grand challenge was to help the DOD fulfill one of its 10 mission roles—the ability to provide humanitarian aid and disaster relief. But the agency's thinking was clearly influenced by the Fukushima disaster. "During the first 24 hours [of Fukushima], there were several opportunities for intervention to help make the disaster less severe," Pratt said, "but unfortunately, people could not go in to that zone because the radiation was too high, and as a result, the disaster was worse than it could have been."

The DARPA robots therefore must operate in what Gill termed an "engineered" environment, "not a random, unstructured outdoor environment." Such an environment is likely to include tools, so the robot will be expected to navigate doors and stairways and use everything from screwdrivers to vehicles. Again using Fukushima as a point of reference, Gill mentioned that fire trucks were used in high-radiation areas at the site, a task that could have been handled more safely and thoroughly if humans weren't involved.

Because Fukushima was a high-radiation environment, communicating with many robots would have been a challenge (radiation can interfere with command-and-control systems). So DARPA's grand challenge will focus explicitly on robots that can operate with a greater degree of autonomy in cases where their operators have limited ability to exchange information and commands with them.

Such robots are also easier to operate. "In general, most of the robots that are out there these days require significant training for the operators in order for them to have high confidence in using them," Pratt said. "Often, in a disaster, the experts who know how to handle the disaster are not robotics experts."

For the grand challenge, planned tasks (which are subject to change) include driving a vehicle under operator control, opening doors, climbing stairs, and connecting cables and hoses.

So far, a variety of universities and companies have signed on to build robots. These include Carnegie Mellon, Drexel University, and Virginia Tech on the academic side, and Raytheon and SCHAFT from the commercial space. Two groups from NASA that have experience with operating robots in space—the Jet Propulsion Lab and the Johnson Space Center—have also signed up.

Track B

The contest won't be limited to teams that can build their own robots. A second set of teams (called, creatively, Track B) will use a simulation package provided by DARPA and, if successful at building software, will be given a standard, government issue robot. There are Track B teams from many of the Track A participants, as well as MIT, the Universities of Kansas and Washington, and Ben Gurion University. Commercial participants in Track B include Lockheed Martin, RE2, TORC Robotics, and RAC Labs.

The simulation package is being generated by funding the Open Source Robotics Foundation, which will update its existing package (released under the Apache license) to handle cloud computing, with the goal of allowing it to simulate a complex environment in real time. "We want to have these tools outlast the program," Pratt said.

Enlarge/ Because of the tasks planned for the Grand Challenge, many entries (along with the standard issue robot, shown here) will be roughly humanoid.

The six Track B teams that show the best progress will be given a robot built by Boston Dynamics, pictured above. It's an updated version of the robot shown in the video below.

The precursor to what will become the standard government issue robot.

In addition to the teams it's providing startup funding for, DARPA will let anyone use the simulator to try to build their own robot control software. If any of this code places high enough in the first virtual challenge (held in the simulator), the teams behind the code will also get funding to move forward (along with, ultimately, a robot).

Right now, the plan is to have the first virtual challenge next year, after which robots will be issued to six teams. The final grand challenge, which will pit these robots against any Track A teams that are still participating, will face off in the real world in December 2014. The winner of that challenge will get $2 million—and, quite possibly, the chance to sell some robots back to the government.

49 Reader Comments

The contest won't be limited to teams that can build their own robots. A second set of teams (called, creatively, Track B) will use a simulation package provided by DARPA and, if successful at building software, will be given a standard, government issue robot.

"The contest won't be limited to teams that can build their own robots. A second set of teams (called, creatively, Track B) will use a simulation package provided by DARPA and, if successful at building software, will be given a standard, government issue robot."

Am I the only one who didn't know that the government has a standard issue robot?

This contest sounds awesome. Bonus points if the robots have a 'HUMAN IN DANGER' audible alarm while performing rescue work!

The contest won't be limited to teams that can build their own robots. A second set of teams (called, creatively, Track B) will use a simulation package provided by DARPA and, if successful at building software, will be given a standard, government issue robot.

The bolded part of that quote just blew my mind. Wow.

I hope they come in identical crates with a big stencil sign saying "CONTENTS: ONE STANDARD GOVT. ISSUE ROBOT" on the side.

The contest won't be limited to teams that can build their own robots. A second set of teams (called, creatively, Track B) will use a simulation package provided by DARPA and, if successful at building software, will be given a standard, government issue robot.

The bolded part of that quote just blew my mind. Wow.

What will be more disturbing is when they they are truly standardized in government parlance:

The contest won't be limited to teams that can build their own robots. A second set of teams (called, creatively, Track B) will use a simulation package provided by DARPA and, if successful at building software, will be given a standard, government issue robot.

Anyone else get the impression that the robot just charged right off the end of the platform in the very final shot of the video? That text appeared very abruptly, just before the robot reached the end of the platform, and it showed no signs of slowing down!

I have to admit. If I was in a disaster zone, I would be afraid that thing would fall and crush me, more than I'd be happy to see it. Humanoid robots just... aren't as stable as a human.

*Of course, now I have the mental image of people running away from the robot trying to save them and it crying "wait for me!". *

The contest won't be limited to teams that can build their own robots. A second set of teams (called, creatively, Track B) will use a simulation package provided by DARPA and, if successful at building software, will be given a standard, government issue robot.

The bolded part of that quote just blew my mind. Wow.

What will be more disturbing is when they they are truly standardized in government parlance:

Robot, Government, Standard IssueRobot, Military, Standard issue.

If its a U.S. Navy robot, it'll have some dumb acronym that already exists in some other domain, just to confuse the hell out of everybody.

Anyone else get the impression that the robot just charged right off the end of the platform in the very final shot of the video? That text appeared very abruptly, just before the robot reached the end of the platform, and it showed no signs of slowing down!

I have to admit. If I was in a disaster zone, I would be afraid that thing would fall and crush me, more than I'd be happy to see it. Humanoid robots just... aren't as stable as a human.

They will just give it big eyes, make it fuzzy and give it a name like the I'm not here to kill you bot

Anyone else get the impression that the robot just charged right off the end of the platform in the very final shot of the video? That text appeared very abruptly, just before the robot reached the end of the platform, and it showed no signs of slowing down!

I have to admit. If I was in a disaster zone, I would be afraid that thing would fall and crush me, more than I'd be happy to see it. Humanoid robots just... aren't as stable as a human.

...yet.

Of course, we do seem to be unnecessarily bound to the humanoid shape. As long as the thing can use human tools and fit in human spaces (driver's seats, chairs, cubicles, hallways, elevators, etc), who cares if it's humanoid.

True. It reminds me of the study (I have no idea when or where, sorry) into human locomotion, where they found that our steps are inherently unstable, but the net is far MORE stable than most other forms of movement. Each single step we take is unstable (center of mass is off-center with respect to the single foot on the ground), and when walking, we are constantly falling but we stay in equilibrium.

I think where this breaks down for (current) robots is in two areas: feedback from the limbs (our brains are constantly processing signals while we walk or run), and the weight compared to the strength and precision of the motors. Robots are HEAVY, yet their motors are imprecise with visible recovery times from inertia. Given a light enough material, I think that even our current computational power would be enough to provide decent mobility.

But that material can never make up for the massive weight of a battery pack needed to enable field operations. All of the robots that are able to move well are generally plugged in and operate in a limited area, and so are able to eliminate the need to carry large amounts of power, thus the frame can be smaller, and the effective precision of the motors goes way up.

So I think we're safe for a while. Field robots now are either incredibly clumsy or slooooow. Or wear out after two minutes.

Something I don't understand is the drive for humanoid robots that can operate large, complex machines (i.e., vehicles) designed for human operators, via the normal human interfaces. I have seen a few other examples of real-world work, including a robot that can operate construction equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes. This seems like a terrible idea!

It makes far more sense to adapt the machine to be used. I see two ways in which this could be done (not mutually exclusive):

1) Integrate a robotic function directly into the machine to be used. For a vehicle, this would mean preserving the normal human controls, but adding autonomous or remote-controlled capabilities to cooperate with whatever efforts are needed.

2) Provide a standardized alternate control interface specifically for a robotic operator. The robot could directly tap into a drive-by-wire system, and additionally access vehicle sensors such as speed, maneuvering camers, etc. This could include simple exterior "handholds" so the robot would not need to enter and exit the vehicle, deal with such things like doors, seat and control positions adjustments, interior design variability, seatbelt entaglement, interior clutter, etc. From some demonstrations I've seen, this is by far more difficult than actually operating the controls! Additionally, the robot would not occupy a seat that could still be used by a human.

Keep in mind that the robots as described in the article would not likely need to "commandeer" civilian vehicles; these would be specialized vehicles like fire trucks or construction equipment.

...I have to admit. If I was in a disaster zone, I would be afraid that thing would fall and crush me, more than I'd be happy to see it. Humanoid robots just... aren't as stable as a human.

...yet.

Of course, we do seem to be unnecessarily bound to the humanoid shape. As long as the thing can use human tools and fit in human spaces (driver's seats, chairs, cubicles, hallways, elevators, etc), who cares if it's humanoid.

Thinking from a psychological perspective, I wonder if people would rather be saved by a humanoid robot or something more functional like a giant (creepy) metal spider?

While I can understand that eschewing the humanoid shape for something else and making specialized 'robotic' vehicles would be simpler, the main idea behind this project (at least what I understand) is that the robots need to go where humans can and use/operate things designed for a human - so therefore they have to be at least humanoid shaped in order to fit.

If it was just 'make a remote controlled car', countless others (Mythbusters included ) would have been there already.

Something I don't understand is the drive for humanoid robots that can operate large, complex machines (i.e., vehicles) designed for human operators, via the normal human interfaces. I have seen a few other examples of real-world work, including a robot that can operate construction equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes. This seems like a terrible idea!

This is "backwards-compatible" as it were and allows for usage of a far greater range of equipment. You're just not going to get all equipment and all vehicles made to adhere to some arbitrary standard that makes it easier to use for robots. People wouldn't want to pay for such systems to be added on the off-chance that at some point their vehicle would be extremely useful for a robot in a crisis situation.

Something I don't understand is the drive for humanoid robots that can operate large, complex machines (i.e., vehicles) designed for human operators, via the normal human interfaces. I have seen a few other examples of real-world work, including a robot that can operate construction equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes. This seems like a terrible idea!

It makes far more sense to adapt the machine to be used. I see two ways in which this could be done (not mutually exclusive):

1) Integrate a robotic function directly into the machine to be used. For a vehicle, this would mean preserving the normal human controls, but adding autonomous or remote-controlled capabilities to cooperate with whatever efforts are needed.

2) Provide a standardized alternate control interface specifically for a robotic operator. The robot could directly tap into a drive-by-wire system, and additionally access vehicle sensors such as speed, maneuvering camers, etc. This could include simple exterior "handholds" so the robot would not need to enter and exit the vehicle, deal with such things like doors, seat and control positions adjustments, interior design variability, seatbelt entaglement, interior clutter, etc. From some demonstrations I've seen, this is by far more difficult than actually operating the controls! Additionally, the robot would not occupy a seat that could still be used by a human.

Keep in mind that the robots as described in the article would not likely need to "commandeer" civilian vehicles; these would be specialized vehicles like fire trucks or construction equipment.

That ignores the main purpose of a disaster assistance robot: To handle a disaster as robustly as possible. You could air-drop a 300lb humanoid robot anywhere in the world in 24hrs or so. You have no guarantees that a disaster will only occur in places that have compatible equipment, or that the disaster would only require equipment that was anticipated to need robot-control capability. And things like fire trucks or large earth-movers can't simply be whimsically air-dropped into spur-of-the-moment locations. So, essentially, you have an ability to get the robot there, but no way to get specialized heavy equipment there.

(And I'm ignoring the security issues with building in back-doors for robots to use on massive multi-ton heavy equipment)

My guess is that one of two approaches will be required:1) Use a humanoid robot with a software abstraction layer that can be trained on-site to operate equipment. The robot could be shown rapidly how to enter/exit equipment and a series of small tasks like "Steer left" "Steer right" "Set throttle" "Start engine" etc. Then a robot could learn how to do various tasks in a general manner, Enter cab. Start engine. Release E-Brake, go forward 20 yards, apply brake to come to stop. Then, on-site, the operator could train the robot on the specific controls needed for the equipment that is available, and then be released to do as it was programmed to do.2) Use an accessory-based form factor that could be setup on-site. There would be a main robot of any convenient form factor and a box of control-operating add-ons. Need to drive a stick shift truck? Pop on 3 pedal pusher attachments (clutch, brake, gas) plus a steering-wheel actuator, and gear-shift manipulator. This would allow more reliable actuation and flexibility and wouldn't require a humanoid form.

Am I the only one that things humanoid robots are a very inefficient design?

humans evolved to be jacks-of-all-trades, not specialists. We're not the fastest on the planet. We can't cover every terrain as well as other animals unless we use special gear. We require a complex balancing system in our ears.

With robots, we can design-to-task, which means we can have wildly different designs that specialize to each task. Instead, we're sinking tons of money into reinventing our own wheel... a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none humanoid robot that will be mediocre at best, but won't excel at any specific task.

I like that we're exploring humanoid robots. I like that it helps us advance robotics, gyro stabilization, environmental manipulation... but while they're a great testing design I don't see them being a very good production design for real world work.

Am I the only one that things humanoid robots are a very inefficient design?

humans evolved to be jacks-of-all-trades, not specialists. We're not the fastest on the planet. We can't cover every terrain as well as other animals unless we use special gear. We require a complex balancing system in our ears.

With robots, we can design-to-task, which means we can have wildly different designs that specialize to each task. Instead, we're sinking tons of money into reinventing our own wheel... a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none humanoid robot that will be mediocre at best, but won't excel at any specific task.

I like that we're exploring humanoid robots. I like that it helps us advance robotics, gyro stabilization, environmental manipulation... but while they're a great testing design I don't see them being a very good production design for real world work.

I think that's the idea. Humans are generalists, which is precisely what you need in a variety of disaster zones. Sure, there is a place for specialists, but only once you know what the problem is.

I have to admit. If I was in a disaster zone, I would be afraid that thing would fall and crush me, more than I'd be happy to see it. Humanoid robots just... aren't as stable as a human. *

What are you basing this on? Last i checked humanoid robots are still just prototypes. I would expect the final product to be quite stable and durable. SMH...

Based purely on observation. Unfortunately, I do not have access to research facilities of this calibre. However, in my follow up post, I try to explain a bit more about why I say they aren't as stable. No hard facts, just observations.

Am I the only one that things humanoid robots are a very inefficient design?

humans evolved to be jacks-of-all-trades, not specialists. We're not the fastest on the planet. We can't cover every terrain as well as other animals unless we use special gear. We require a complex balancing system in our ears.

With robots, we can design-to-task, which means we can have wildly different designs that specialize to each task. Instead, we're sinking tons of money into reinventing our own wheel... a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none humanoid robot that will be mediocre at best, but won't excel at any specific task.

I like that we're exploring humanoid robots. I like that it helps us advance robotics, gyro stabilization, environmental manipulation... but while they're a great testing design I don't see them being a very good production design for real world work.

I think that's the idea. Humans are generalists, which is precisely what you need in a variety of disaster zones. Sure, there is a place for specialists, but only once you know what the problem is.

Agreed. We have a lot of specialized robots in use around the world already as it stands. Roomba, CERN's tape robots (and a much smaller version I use at work), any automobile factory, etc. What we don't have is something that can be practicable in uncertain situations where we don't fully know all the variables involved.

Am I the only one that things humanoid robots are a very inefficient design?

humans evolved to be jacks-of-all-trades, not specialists. We're not the fastest on the planet. We can't cover every terrain as well as other animals unless we use special gear. We require a complex balancing system in our ears.

With robots, we can design-to-task, which means we can have wildly different designs that specialize to each task. Instead, we're sinking tons of money into reinventing our own wheel... a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none humanoid robot that will be mediocre at best, but won't excel at any specific task.

I like that we're exploring humanoid robots. I like that it helps us advance robotics, gyro stabilization, environmental manipulation... but while they're a great testing design I don't see them being a very good production design for real world work.

I agree and disagree. I think generalist robots that can use human tools and control surfaces are the way to go, but I don't understand why 'generalist' necessarily equates to 'humanoid'. A small, barrel-shaped, high-clearance four-legged walking robot with grasping manipulators would do just as well as a humanoid in most generalist situations I should think.

Am I the only one that things humanoid robots are a very inefficient design?

humans evolved to be jacks-of-all-trades, not specialists. We're not the fastest on the planet. We can't cover every terrain as well as other animals unless we use special gear. We require a complex balancing system in our ears.

With robots, we can design-to-task, which means we can have wildly different designs that specialize to each task. Instead, we're sinking tons of money into reinventing our own wheel... a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none humanoid robot that will be mediocre at best, but won't excel at any specific task.

I like that we're exploring humanoid robots. I like that it helps us advance robotics, gyro stabilization, environmental manipulation... but while they're a great testing design I don't see them being a very good production design for real world work.

I agree and disagree. I think generalist robots that can use human tools and control surfaces are the way to go, but I don't understand why 'generalist' necessarily equates to 'humanoid'. A small, barrel-shaped, high-clearance four-legged walking robot with grasping manipulators would do just as well as a humanoid in most generalist situations I should think.

You are probably correct on the method of locomotion, as long as the size is mansized or slightly smaller I think. I agree that it wouldn't necessarily have to be bipedal, but how would a four leggedbarrelshaped robot drive a firetruck?

Am I the only one that things humanoid robots are a very inefficient design?

humans evolved to be jacks-of-all-trades, not specialists. We're not the fastest on the planet. We can't cover every terrain as well as other animals unless we use special gear. We require a complex balancing system in our ears.

With robots, we can design-to-task, which means we can have wildly different designs that specialize to each task. Instead, we're sinking tons of money into reinventing our own wheel... a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none humanoid robot that will be mediocre at best, but won't excel at any specific task.

I like that we're exploring humanoid robots. I like that it helps us advance robotics, gyro stabilization, environmental manipulation... but while they're a great testing design I don't see them being a very good production design for real world work.

I agree and disagree. I think generalist robots that can use human tools and control surfaces are the way to go, but I don't understand why 'generalist' necessarily equates to 'humanoid'. A small, barrel-shaped, high-clearance four-legged walking robot with grasping manipulators would do just as well as a humanoid in most generalist situations I should think.

You are probably correct on the method of locomotion, as long as the size is mansized or slightly smaller I think. I agree that it wouldn't necessarily have to be bipedal, but how would a four leggedbarrelshaped robot drive a firetruck?

Well, we would be assuming that a firetruck would still be using current control schemes instead of just having a jack the bot could plug into and pilot the vehicle as if the vehicle is now the robot.

I think back to 1950's bugs bunny cartoons, where the "house of the future" always had robots using brooms to sweep floors and they're srcubbing dishes by hand. So much high-tech innovation in a robot to do something via archaic, manual interface.

Granted, it may be useful for a robot to have multiple ways to interact with an environment and tools. That wonderful jack-in interface may get blown out during an emergency, hence needing manual operation. But, I still think they need to trim off some of the more expensive (both innovation & cost-wise) features, like needing gyro's to steady bipedal movement.

They could mix-n-match multiple locomotion options, like dropdown wheels/tracks, and then some limbs for crawling over more rugged terrain.

I guess financial darwinism will eventually whittle down a viable platform.

the idea is that it will have to use human configured tools and equipment in buildings designed to be used by humans. This has been mentioned before in the thread, we won't know what they will encounter except for one factor, that everything around them was designed to be used by humans. So while another form might work, you would have to show that it will be able to contort itself into a shape that will manage all those spaces, equipment, tools meant for humans.This isn't a specific use robot with known quantities to deal with, or one that is designed with the outside world in mind. I do think that a spider type robot or any 4 limb robot could be made to fit in all those situations, including the use of maybe special suits, don't see why it would need it but... the thing is, without a thorough knowledge of what the situation will be, you have to assume that the only common configuration that WILL be certain is a man sized, man shaped xyz space/equipment/tool. (One possibility of a suit that it might need that is specifically designed for humans, is a high pressure suit, assuming a situation where radiation and pressure are both significant, enough to either need a specially built robot or one that can use the already available suit... )

Am I the only one that things humanoid robots are a very inefficient design?

humans evolved to be jacks-of-all-trades, not specialists. We're not the fastest on the planet. We can't cover every terrain as well as other animals unless we use special gear. We require a complex balancing system in our ears.

With robots, we can design-to-task, which means we can have wildly different designs that specialize to each task. Instead, we're sinking tons of money into reinventing our own wheel... a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none humanoid robot that will be mediocre at best, but won't excel at any specific task.

I like that we're exploring humanoid robots. I like that it helps us advance robotics, gyro stabilization, environmental manipulation... but while they're a great testing design I don't see them being a very good production design for real world work.

I agree and disagree. I think generalist robots that can use human tools and control surfaces are the way to go, but I don't understand why 'generalist' necessarily equates to 'humanoid'. A small, barrel-shaped, high-clearance four-legged walking robot with grasping manipulators would do just as well as a humanoid in most generalist situations I should think.

You are probably correct on the method of locomotion, as long as the size is mansized or slightly smaller I think. I agree that it wouldn't necessarily have to be bipedal, but how would a four leggedbarrelshaped robot drive a firetruck?

Well, we would be assuming that a firetruck would still be using current control schemes instead of just having a jack the bot could plug into and pilot the vehicle as if the vehicle is now the robot.

I think back to 1950's bugs bunny cartoons, where the "house of the future" always had robots using brooms to sweep floors and they're srcubbing dishes by hand. So much high-tech innovation in a robot to do something via archaic, manual interface.

Granted, it may be useful for a robot to have multiple ways to interact with an environment and tools. That wonderful jack-in interface may get blown out during an emergency, hence needing manual operation. But, I still think they need to trim off some of the more expensive (both innovation & cost-wise) features, like needing gyro's to steady bipedal movement.

They could mix-n-match multiple locomotion options, like dropdown wheels/tracks, and then some limbs for crawling over more rugged terrain.

I guess financial darwinism will eventually whittle down a viable platform.

I like the notion of future tech having R2 ports, heh, but that belies the point of a generalist robot. And there is no reason my theoretical nonhumanoid generalist robot couldn't use its locomotive limbs to operate pedals, with grasping manipulators to operate steering and gear shift, etc. That being said, I think the real challenge for a true generalist robot, humanoid or not, is building in the superset of sensors (and necessary algorithms to fuse and process the sensor data) that allow it to be both generalist AND better at doing its job than an equivalent human.